'
a




            PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

            TO ) ,and

            DISPUTE:) The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company

            QUESTIONS (a) was the claim presented under date of Feb

            AT ISSUE: ruary 18, 1966 in behalf of Crossing Watchmen

            L. Reed, J. Daniels and C. Hall retroactively

            limited to December 20, 1965

            or


                    (b) Should claimants L. Reed, J. Daniels and C. Hall be allowed their guaranteed compensation during the period from September 14, 1965 to December 19, 1965, both dates inclusive.


            OPINION The three employees had filed a claim on February 18,

            OF BOARD: 1966, seeking the protective benefits of the agree

            ment from September 14, 1965. The claim was sustained

            by Carrier but compensation was granted only from December 20,

            1965, that date being sixty days before the date of the claim.


            Under the section entitled "Handling of Claims and Grievances," the Interpretations specifically distinguish between disputes over "the meaning or interpretation of the provisions of the February 7, 1965 Agreement" and "individual claims for compensation." In the latter case the Interpretations provide that claims "shall be handled in accordance with the rules governing the handling of claims and grievances, including time limit rules" (underlining added); if the claim for compensation involves an interpretation of the Agreement, the time limit begins to run 30 days after the interpretation is rendered.


            Carrier did not question the meaning or interpretation of the Agreement, but acknowledged its liability by directing payment of the claims. The ,,·ules in effect between the parties limit retroactivity for a continuing claim to 60 days prior to the date of the claim. Since neither the February 7, 1965, Agreement nor the Interpretations of November 24, 1965, alter

                                      Award No. 62

                                      Case No. MW-6-E


the time-limit rules governing the handling of such claims, the limitation of retroactivity to GO days was proper.

                      AS^7ARD


          The answer to Question (a) is "Yes."


          The answer to Question (b) is "No."


                      M' ton Friedman, Referee


Washington, D. C. May 9, 1969